My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Item A: Public Hearing onMetro Plan Amendment (Delta Sand and Gravel)
COE
>
City of Eugene
>
Council Agendas 2006
>
CC Agenda - 12/12/06 Joint Public Hearing
>
Item A: Public Hearing onMetro Plan Amendment (Delta Sand and Gravel)
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
6/9/2010 12:58:15 PM
Creation date
12/7/2006 11:34:08 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council
City_Council_Document_Type
Agenda Item Summary
CMO_Meeting_Date
12/12/2006
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
131
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
<br />,.) <br /> <br />PAZC OS-c, L5J <br />ORD J.A \ a..~ <i <br />Date <br />Exhibit No. ~ \"-- S <br />to petitioner, the impact of the proposed mining practices on the farm stands in the area <br /> <br />2 played a major role in the county's decision that the benefits of preserving existing 'uses in <br /> <br />3 the vicinity outweighed the benefits of allowing mining. Petitioner argues that because we <br /> <br />4 cannot be sure that the Board of Commissioners would reach the same conclusion if the <br /> <br />/. <br /> <br /> <br />5 impact on farm stands was removed from the analysis, we must remand the decision for the <br /> <br />6 county to apply the ESEE analysis to the proper factors. <br />7 The county based its decision in large part on the impact that the proposed mining <br />8 activities would have on agriculture and on the neighboring farm stands in particular. <br />9 Therefore, we agree with petitioner that the challenged decision must be remanded to allow <br />10 the county to conduct a new ESEE analysis that does not include consideration of conflicts <br />11 with farm stands. The tenth assignment of error is sustained. <br /> <br />12 XI. <br /> <br />APPLICABILITY OF LOCAL APPROVAL CRITERIA <br /> <br />13 The county denied petitioner's application under OAR 660-23-0180(4). The county <br /> <br />14 also denied petitioner's application in part because it failed to satisfy local approval <br />15 standards that address applications to amend comprehensive plan maps and zoning maps. 15 <br />16 Petitioner in its first assignment of error, and OCAP~~ in its eleventh assignment of error, <br />17 argue that the county erred in applying local approval criteria to the mining application and <br />18 basing the denial of the application in part on petitioner's failure to satisfy local code <br />19 requirements. Petitioners contend that it,!s clear from the text and context of the Goal 5 rule, <br /> <br />15 Lane Code (LC) 16.400( 6)(h)(iii) sets out the criteria for amending the Rural Comprehensive Plan. It <br />provides, in relevant part: <br /> <br />"The Board [of Commissioners] may amend or supplement the Rural Comprehensive Plan <br />upon making the following findings: <br /> <br />"( aa ) For Major * * * Amendments * * * the Plan component or amendment meets all <br />applicable requirements of local and state law, including Statewide Planning Goals <br />and Oregon Administrative Rules. <br /> <br />"(bb) For Major * * * Amendments * * * the Plan amendment or component is: <br /> <br />Page 40 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.